Return-Path: X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA41F12012D for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:02:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wNaH1c4u_p0r for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out-19.smtp.github.com (out-19.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C769A120129 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from github-lowworker-b19c547.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-b19c547.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 318105204D6 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:02:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1571860942; bh=CCiZvCCI0ZMjpPLx/GgrC64uQ0yV+85DYkHdJn141yQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=M4UgLleCV071OXcJTWA4KXHlNkG/yYJPjW35zZvCECOTO62ieO5h3KvP7OZGkLTxX nHOp0SN0hE1Tkpc6CtkXub08TcrKwH6HCOIbPicPCDMBGlQosYqRewvmy113uTxfxK 28QgeIfELM0yhkU3PSZIIIarDxROgo3UtB5TZ1KY= Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:02:22 -0700 From: MikkelFJ Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts To: quicwg/base-drafts Cc: Subscribed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Define terms for application actions (#2857) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5db0b1ce22c4f_30693fe0726cd9683678c"; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org Archived-At: X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 20:02:25 -0000 ----==_mimepart_5db0b1ce22c4f_30693fe0726cd9683678c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit mikkelfj commented on this pull request. > + +- listen for incoming connections, which prepares for the exchange described in + {{handshake}}; +- if Early Data is supported, embed application-controlled data in the TLS + resumption ticket sent to the client; and +- if Early Data is supported, retrieve application-controlled data from the + client's resumption ticket and enable rejecting Early Data based on that + information. + +In either role, applications need to be able to: + +- configure minimum values for the initial number of permitted streams of each + type, as communicated in the transport parameters ({{transport-parameters}}); +- control resource allocation of various types, including flow control and the + number of permitted streams of each type; +- identify whether the handshake has completed successfully or is still ongoing I'm not objecting to this term being defined, but I do suspect there is an issue if the now infamous PR #3121 gets merged. But, as it hasn't yet, and there is pushback, I'll see where it goes. Defining exactly what is, or might be, wrong requires a deep analysis because one peer can consider a handshake complete without the other peer agreeing, and sometimes that might be fine while in other cases not so much, like path migration. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2857#discussion_r338250329 ----==_mimepart_5db0b1ce22c4f_30693fe0726cd9683678c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

@mikkelfj commented on this pull request.

In draft-ietf-quic-transport.md:

> +
+- listen for incoming connections, which prepares for the exchange described in
+  {{handshake}};
+- if Early Data is supported, embed application-controlled data in the TLS
+  resumption ticket sent to the client; and
+- if Early Data is supported, retrieve application-controlled data from the
+  client's resumption ticket and enable rejecting Early Data based on that
+  information.
+
+In either role, applications need to be able to:
+
+- configure minimum values for the initial number of permitted streams of each
+  type, as communicated in the transport parameters ({{transport-parameters}});
+- control resource allocation of various types, including flow control and the
+  number of permitted streams of each type;
+- identify whether the handshake has completed successfully or is still ongoing

I'm not objecting to this term being defined, but I do suspect there is an issue if the now infamous PR #3121 gets merged. But, as it hasn't yet, and there is pushback, I'll see where it goes. Defining exactly what is, or might be, wrong requires a deep analysis because one peer can consider a handshake complete without the other peer agreeing, and sometimes that might be fine while in other cases not so much, like path migration.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

----==_mimepart_5db0b1ce22c4f_30693fe0726cd9683678c--